Rotaretilbo wrote:And while your six states are very impressive and shiny, you're basically never going to convince the conservative states to go with it by saying "oh, and fuck anyone who disagrees, we don't compromise".

Rotaretilbo wrote:And since it'll work eventually, we should take the route that pisses off the most people, moves the slowest, and has the highest chance of embittering gays to a large group of people. You, sir, are brilliant.

My six shiny states turned to 50 shiny states in less than three years, and support for gay marriage is the highest it's ever been and continues to increase across all demographics. I am a genius, after all. Thanks to everyone who made this possible.

So now the law is changed, but a huge portion of the population still opposes the idea of same-sex marriage and the heavy-handed implementation by the government just gives them to be salty about, guaranteeing decades of tension and prejudice.

IMO, the new state of things is an improvement, but I still think removing the term "marriage" from government would have been easier and more agreeable for both sides.

At least we can finally start focusing on something more important than semantics in my home state. Oh wait, it's an election year. Shit.

CivBase wrote:So now the law is changed, but a huge portion of the population still opposes the idea of same-sex marriage and the heavy-handed implementation by the government just gives them to be salty about, guaranteeing decades of tension and prejudice.

yes, but a majority of the population agrees with the government in some way, shape or form. a lot of issues have a "huge portion of the population" on one side and a majority on the other. so its just like any other issue at this point really.

The solution which the most people will agree with is better than a solution which fewer people will agree with, even if that solution still has a majority agreement.

Let's say three friends are trying to choose a restaurant to go to. Two of them like restaurant A and the other likes restaurant B, but all three like restaurant C. The friends spend their time arguing between A and B and evetually A wins out, but surely the best choice would have been C.

I don't know for sure that the idea I support would have such universal acceptance, but anecdotal suggests it would do well. Regardless, I was disheartened to see the discussion of the government's roll in relationships basically left entirely untouched by political advocates for either side.

It's interesting to see how everyone seems to be content with letting big brother having so much control over our private lives. We bicker over iPhone encryption and wire tapping while, at the same time, graciously allowing the government to have the final say in our relationship status.